...as an owner of the mark 1...that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.

For me the draw wouldn't be the improved IQ as much as it would be the reduced size and weight.

This review was a little disappointing in that he did not shoot indoors with both lenses @ f/2.8 with various ISO levels (to take advantage of the new 5D3 too) -> imho this is what wedding pro's want to see.

However, as an owner of the mark 1 (UZ11xx date code - so one of the last batch ever manufactured) that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.

I think it's too hard to judge how great of an improvement it is based on this one review, I'm not sure where you got the 4% figure. The 24-70mm is still a great lens provided you have a good copy, but it's $1599.99 at places that it's still available (gone at B&H), so it's not too huge of a difference. But I agree an amateur/enthusiast can get by with the 24-70 I or 24-105mm no problem.

You only have to amortize the difference in value of your sale price. Assuming you needed the money and had to sell off your lens.. you are looking at a $200-300 loss in the next 2-3 years and maybe a BE beyond that looking at the dollar take a slip. It really boils down to cashflow... since no enthusiast buys a lens to "depreciate it".

However if your V1 is tack sharp, keep it, it is probably not spending the extra $$$ unless yuo have good cashflows and a very "understanding" wife.

I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?

The difference is there if you use the mk2 with the new af system of the 5d3 or 1dx. For any other camera body, the mk1 might be as good - and the zoom design with the protective lens hood of the mk1 seems more attractive to me, btw.

:-) ... his videos have a very subjective, amateurish approach - see also his reviews of the Tamron 24-70. While this is fine if you want to p&s, it lacks tech knowledge (the fact alone that he expects 70mm to be the same on every lens).

In this case: The new Canon mk2 uses more doublecross af points on the 5d3/1dx, so it being as fast as the mk1 is a good sign since more precision usually means less speed. And a more detailed test might show that the mk2 has a higher af hit rate on Canon newest systems.

I think he is a little too preoccupied with the 'world's first' moniker. He said it in the video that he borrowed it for a day. I felt the same about the Tamron reviews. To me it is very much a sitting on the fence approach and trying not to piss anyone off.

Among other things, I would have liked to have seen discussion of distortion as this area has long been an area where major improvement could be generated on zooms that have a wide end.

My overall impression was that he said that it basically does what Canon says it is supposed to do.

I would buy this lens to use at f/2.8. If it doesn't perform at f/2.8, my 24-105mm L will perform at f/4 or f/8. I've had five of the Mark 1 version of 24-70mm L's, and was a bit disappointed in all of them, so I'm pretty cautious about taking the plunge.I'm also interested in CA's, I tried a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G with my D800, and CA's at f/2.8 were horrible.

After seeing a few reviews, it seems the new version is better but just slightly...I already own a 24-70 and I am really happy with it. I did see a big difference between the old 70-200 and the new 70-200 II. I hope it is The same with this one. Now, since I already own one and selling it would probablyGet me around $1000, I'm reconsidering keeping it and getting a second lens. At a difference of $1300 afterSelling the old one, I might keepIt and get a 70-200 II since upgrading to a 1DX from a 1D IV, the 24-70 seems too short now. What do u think?

After seeing a few reviews, it seems the new version is better but just slightly...I already own a 24-70 and I am really happy with it. I did see a big difference between the old 70-200 and the new 70-200 II. I hope it is The same with this one. Now, since I already own one and selling it would probablyGet me around $1000, I'm reconsidering keeping it and getting a second lens. At a difference of $1300 afterSelling the old one, I might keepIt and get a 70-200 II since upgrading to a 1DX from a 1D IV, the 24-70 seems too short now. What do u think?

Sounds like a good idea. I already have the 70-200 II and just yesterday got the 24-70 II.. If you're mostly doing studio and will use the lens closed down, you probably won't see a big difference between the mark 1 and mark 2 24-70s.